The Obama Deception - Number #1 in Google Video

Mike Lucey

Sorry guys! No luck yet. Morgan Grenfell & Company are German owned and would appear to be crooks!

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined Morgan Grenfell & Co Limited (Morgan Grenfell), a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG, 190,000 for breaching FSA Principles by failing to act in its customer's best interests and failing to manage its conflicts of interests.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/Library/Communication/PR/2004/034.shtml

Maybe better luck with the next one on the list

Mike Lucey

..... no luck on this one either. http://www.lazard.co.uk/ Lazard Brothers are obviously part of the good old British Establishment.

jeff hammond

@mike lucey said:

It would appear that while you guys over there in the US of A broke away from the British Empire, you did not break away from their control

i think we did for a little while... our forefathers (namely thomas jefferson) warned us what will happen if we allow bankers to gain control over our money and exactly that has happened..

regardless, i'm pretty sure 'countries' are just a formality these days at the upper level of power.. we only have one world within our current reach and that world has nearly been conquered by a small group of people.

Mike Lucey

..... looks like Alex Brown & Son http://www.nndb.com/company/856/000124484/ is owned by a German Bank

Mike Lucey

..... OKAY! We struck gold with this one, Brown Bros Harriman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Brothers_Harriman

Opppps! I quote,

'Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (BBH) is an old and large private bank in the United States which is particularly notable because of the large number of influential American politicians and government appointees whom have worked at the company since its beginnings; e.g. W. Averell Harriman,Prescott S. Bush, Robert A. Lovett. Currently the firm has 40 partners and 4,000 staff people globally'

Alan Fraser

As Jeff says, countries are largely irrelevant. The super-rich don't have countries, just their own self interest at heart. The only time they get patriotic is when they need a bunch of dumb schmucks to go and fight a war in order to further those interests. That was true of Iraq...and if you do the research, you find it was also at least partly true of the US Revolutionary War.

Mike Lucey

I agree with you to a certain extent Alan BUT they have to base themselves in a Country that has a bit of clout, Military wise, otherwise their interests could not be protected. This is broadly saying what you point out.

jeff hammond

@mike lucey said:

I agree with you to a certain extent Alan BUT they have to base themselves in a Country that has a bit of clout, Military wise, otherwise their interests could not be protected. This is broadly saying what you point out.

yeah, maybe that explains this:

"Of the world's top 100 economies, as based on the annual GDP, 51 are corporations,
And 47 of that 51 are US based. Wal-mart, General Motors and Exxon are more economically powerful than Saudi Arabia, Poland, Norway, South Africa, Finland, Indonesia and many others…."

.

Alan Fraser

I wasn't under the impression I was compelled to answer your question, but since you insist, I did take the time out to watch the video in David Icke's website....and a total waste of time it was too. What about it?
A load of politicians uttering the phrase "New World Order" taken out of context. That phrase means something different to everybody that utters it. The plain fact is that we are already in a New World Order...we are having a G20, not a G8. Industrial and financial bases are shifting, just as they always have done. That is a New World Order.

The British Empire was a New World Order. The American Empire, Pax Americanus or just plain American lifestyle influence was another. There is nothing particularly sinister about the phrase unless you are hell-bent on interpreting it that way. All other content in that video comprised various conspiracy theorists putting the worst possible spin on things in a totally speculative manner. Do you seriously think that people are going to line up to have glass vials implanted in them? Say what you like about the French, but at least they had the balls to simply dynamite speed cameras when the government tried to introduce them. What do you think they would do if it was planned to tag them like criminals?

Yes the super-rich manipulate society, cause wars for their own personal gain, influence politicians; even bring down governments. So what's new? Medici...Borgia....

Stinkie

It's probably just me, but I tend to get suspicious whenever someone claims to have "woken up". Because all this conspiracy stuff kinda looks like a contemporary substitute for religion to me - yet another belief system to quiet man's yearning to 'look behind the veil'. "Woken up" sounds like "saw the light" to me.

Stinkie

Hmm, yeah. I agree.

I'm dl'ing that flick, though. Looks like a 'faction-style' remake of "The Manchurian Candidate". I'm hoping there's aliens in it. Wee!

Alan Fraser

Me too Stinkie. Why is it that the majority of home-grown terrorists happen to be recent converts to Islam? I'm more than suspicious of 'the truth' being revealed to anyone. The usual result is to lose all sense of perspective.

As for what do we do... You do what good you can for the short time you are here. That’s all any of us can do. But I do mean DO, not bleat about it. Talk is cheap.

jeff hammond

@unknownuser said:

It's probably just me, but I tend to get suspicious whenever someone claims to have "woken up". Because all this conspiracy stuff kinda looks like a contemporary substitute for religion to me - yet another belief system to quiet man's yearning to 'look behind the veil'. "Woken up" sounds like "saw the light" to me.

i agree with this though it could just be a semantics issue..

ultimately, the quote put up by adam:

@earthmover said:

The issue is as Buckminster Fuller said, "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

has a lot of truth in it.. we can fight this type of crap all we want but until there's a real change, everything will stay the same only in a different package.. roman empire, hitler, etc.. history just keeps repeating itself because we as humans haven't really changed..

i love this clip of Jiddu Krishnamurti as shown in zeitgeist addendum.. (follow the related videos for more of his speech)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BORmMu1quo&feature=related

listen to him speak.. he's offering very real answers as to what really has to happen.. we as a whole need to switch up our entire way of thinking or this crap is just going to continue until we're gone..
hmm.. maybe another 500 years or so if no one hits the nuke button before then..

solo

Okay, we now 'see the light', what shall we do?

Lets look at another historical 'see the light moment', the French revolution.
The working class 'saw the light' and revolted against the manipulating power hungry elite, slaughtered them in the streets and replaced them with another dictator.

Stinkie

I keep wondering what needs to change? What's this 'crap' we oughta be figthing? Don't get me wrong, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious. I am asking, because, from where I'm standing, life in the West (North America + Western Europe) looks pretty easy. Most of us aren't starving, far from it, and there's probably no secret agents hiding in the trees in our backyards. Hell, these times probably are the easiest ever! (For us Westerners, that is.)

"Okay, we now 'see the light', what shall we do?"

I say we kick back with a couple of beers 'til that light starts dancing.

tomsdesk

Anybody have a link to a synopsis of "reasonable points" in the video referred to by the reasonable people in this discussion? I just can't seem to make myself listen to 2 hours of what I've watched so far, in the three times I've tried, in order to find the points that have impressed you all?

tomasz

@solo said:

Okay, we now 'see the light', what shall we do?

I think you can find one of possible answers in Zeitgeist - Addendum - 4th chapter.
I am not personally convinced that the science has a power to be our saviour, as authors suggest. It has been proven that science without moral principles will not necessary lead the humanity to where we all would like to be.

And back to the main topic, my first post in this thread... I think that Alex Johnes has not much to offer except destruction of an old order. Mentioned Addendum proposes something different - building independent movement that will eventually make old rules obsolete. Altough, as I have written, the proposed methods does not convince me.

Tomasz

Stinkie

@unknownuser said:

It has been proven that science without moral principles will not necessary lead the humanity to where we all would like to be.

Science has nothing to do with morality. Nada.

A few questions:

Who has proven this?
What was the topic of their research?
What was the exact result of their research?

In other words: please back up your claim.

paulside

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

Yes the super-rich manipulate society, cause wars for their own personal gain, influence politicians; even bring down governments. So what's new?

So what do we do then, just let them - in our name?

I'm in complete agreement with with Coen on this, people need to wake up and face the reality of whats being engineered covertly.

I was in denial to until I took the time to read up and look into the true eyewitness accounts and testimonies of what really happened in 9/11 and 7/7

Once you've done that you will realise:

A control system capable of doing this, is capable of anything.
Just how gullible, vunerable and detached the vast majority of people have become, (Including me prior to waking up)
That you have been trying to defend the indefensible for so long believing it just couldn't possible be so, until a little voice inside says
" Wait a minute something isn't right here"'
Everything throughout history has and is being manipulated for one outcome.

tomasz

@unknownuser said:

Science has nothing to do with morality. Nada.

Stinkie, If you would think a little bit more about what I have written, you would have found answers for both questions yourself.

Have I written that it does? I have written about science WITHOUT morality. Science is not a morality. The thing is that scientists are not machines, but people who can have moral principles. Is it so hard to understand? Same applies to people that use results of scientific experiments.

@unknownuser said:

A few questions:

Who has proven this?

What was the topic of their research?

What was the exact result of their research?
In other words: please back up your claim.

The Manhattan Project
Nuclear Bomb
Hiroshima and Nagasaki